Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Did you miss "current customers?"
I thought this was the most interesting quote in the press release:
Even some of our current customers are unaware of the wide range of nanomaterials that we have developed and are capable of producing
Most likely, the patent examiner saw the claims as overly broad and required QTMM to limit their scope by adding/changing the language to make it more specific.
Narrower claims are a double-edged sword, they may provide less protection, but they may also be more likely to survive an IPR or trial without being invalidated.
I just noticed that a lot more specific detail was added to the patent claims between when Bayer applied for the application and when QMC was granted the application.
I was simply commenting on the logic of the model mechanics, not the quality of the assumptions.
Your model would be a bit more realistic if rather than use a fixed profit margin %, you made some cost assumptions. Margin is a function of sales price and not a constant like you're assuming, however, cost may be a constant given that your production quantity assumption is a constant. For example, if you have a 50% margin at $200mm sales, your costs are $100mm, and under the same set of assumptions, you would be losing $60mm at $40mm sales yet your model says you're making $20mm. likewise, if you could run a 50% margin at $20/g, your revenue would be $40mm and your costs would be $20mm, and if the price was $100/g and your revenue was $200mm, your profit would be $180mm not $100mm.
If the team is right, an array of 1,000 of these molecules could carry out calculations so complex, no computer existing today could verify them.
I would rather QMC be putting together deals than writing reports to share holders. I hope they've been too busy to write something up because I have done my DD and don't need anyone to hold my hand about this investment.
For the record. How long should we believe that QTMM is working with 5 film groups before we need to see some revenue?
The next price explosion over $1 will happen when massive continuous flow of QD production begins from multiple reactors.
Are you saying Freschfield's product is not viable
What was announced certainly certainly suggested an interpertation of $250K/Q with the first payment in June. If that's not the case and it doesn't show up in the upcoming 10-K, I think they would be smart to clarify.
I don't know. Maybe or maybe not. Just because you announce something doesn't mean it's material nor does an announcement necessarily make something material. They didn't even file an 8-K for the press release that announced the deal.
They also never said how the payments will be made. The assumptions have been $250K/Q, but how do we know it's not heavily end weighted? Or based on progress milestones that could make the Q1 payment $0?
For that matter, it may be alive and well and not show up in the 10-K in any case. The announcement said "Freschfield will fund development by providing $1 million over four quarters to Quantum Materials beginning June 2017." Maybe the first "quarter" is Jun-Jul-Aug? If that's the case, if it funded today, we might not know until mid-November.
Again, I'm not saying I think it's dead. I'm simply pointing out that we don't know how much, if any, has been funded to date and it's entirely conceivable that it could be cancelled today without any cost to Freschfield.
Where did I write anything of the sort??? Certainly you got the "pictures or it didn't happen" meme reference and didn't take that to be an indictment, yes? I simply pointed out the FACT that AS FAR AS WE KNOW, exactly zero money has changed hands. Unless you have inside information(?), your claim that the deal must still be alive because FF dropped $1M is completely unsupportable as of today.
Who said they dropped $1M? The press release didn't cost more than a couple bucks, and as far as we know that's all that's been spent, and QTMM probably spent it. Pictures or it didn't happen - or in this case, financial statements or a press release saying it did.
Yes, because every startup company like Freschfield drops $1 million with other companies just to kill the collaboration a couple months later. We all know this is the best financial strategy for a cash strapped startup like Freschfield.
If QTMM decides to move up to the Nasdaq or NYSE, a reverse seems like a foregone conclusion. Notwithstanding, if QTMM technology is as advertised, once they have contracts and revenue, you have to stop thinking of it as an OTC company. It's a very different dynamic. A reverse at that point most likely will not crash shareholder value.
The 10M options, on the other hand, sure smells a LOT like a sale in the works. If not, I'd love to know what the board was thinking. The $90M sale price seems kind of random, no? It makes me think of Silence of the Lambs:
Is this Lecter's handwriting? "Clarice, doesn't this random scattering of sites seem desperately random - like the elaborations of a bad liar? Ta, Hannibal Lecter."
"Desperately random." What does he mean?
Not random at all, maybe. Like there's some pattern here...?
FWIW, the Allied Market Research report referenced is more than 3 years old.
I hope you're right, however that thinking doesn't seem to be consistent with options that vest on a sale of the company at <$0.20/share.
Obviously there is a lot more to making commercially viable QDs in flow than is disclosed in the patent, or QTMM would have been selling QDs years ago. You can't infringe on a patent if you don't know how to make it work.
Squires owns 45 million shares, wow!!!!
Believe it or not, I don't care, I'm long in this stock. I hope you're right - BUT IT'S PURE SPECULATION at this point.
They have shown a commercially viable film? Really? You've seen the FWHM, efficiency, stability, and cost specs? Please point me to a link!!! Why don't we have a contract already given the market growth projections?
This stock could make for a good episode of the Twilight Zone...
No. All you can say is what QTMM has said. Unless you have inside information you want to share, all you have is that QTMM has sold NOTHING to date. As for all of China, I don't think even QTMM has claimed that! More BS on your part.
Why 5? To answer that, we'd need to know what "working with" means. Can you answer that?
Yes, they have patents. That and $5 will get you a coffee at SBUX. It would seem however that the patents in and of themselves, are not enough for a commercial product as QTMM hasn't sold ANYTHING. Maybe they will protect a future commercial product. Maybe they won't. At this point we don't even know if QTMM can make a commercial product.
We also know that Samsung/Hansol NHM is carefully construed batch processing with Nanosys IP unlike QMC Continuous Flow. Having Nanosys up for sale especially at this time is quite interesting and almost a red flag due to the fact that their QD's do not include being fully NHM compliant. hmmm..
Why, in VERY specific terms, do you think QTMM has not made any sales to date?
Why do you suppose Nanosys would look for a private sale as opposed to an IPO? This would seem to suggest that they think they are more valuable to a strategic buyer than as a public company? Why might that be? One reason could be that the main source of value is the patents (as opposed to future earnings potential!). For that matter, QD Vision wasn't sold. QD Vision sold its patents - a subtle but meaningful distinction - and for a tiny fraction of $1B. If you're Samsung, owning the patents is fundamentally different than licensing them. If you're Samsung's competitor, you can't lock out Samsung as they have a license, but you can prevent Samsung from locking you out if you own Nanosys.
Maybe Nanosys can't figure out how to make QD that are commercially viable from a cost perspective, but Samsung/Hansol has figured it out using at least some of their Nanosys-licensed IP. $1B sounds like a lot for patents. Or maybe not. What if there is a patent(s) in there that they (Samsung and/or Nanosys) believe is critical to produce NHM QD's with acceptable specifications and stability? What's $1B to Samsung to own the market? They'd spend that to build a OLED fab if they weren't making QD TVs and then just be another competitor of LG. Or what's a $1B to BOE or other major competitor to be one of only two?
If any of this is right, would would that imply for QTMM?
All pure speculation on my part. I'm sure there are other explanations. I look forward to hearing a better one.
Nanosys shows numbers for Samsung and LG at 22:33 in this video:
You may be right, and I hope you are. I was just suggesting, in a roundabout kind of way, to solartech that he might want to actually read the documents before posting.
I'm curious what you think it means. And what news do you expect to be released that hasn't already been released? What is there about the deal that we don't already know except that perhaps it's not dead?
I have a feeling that Stephen is closing the $5 million equity financing deal with SBI investment and L2 Capital and when news is released share price will catch up at lightning speed.
The whole Solar Energy Sector is on fire and in a lasting strong up trend.
http://stockcharts.com/h-sc/ui?s=TAN&p=W&yr=1&mn=0&dy=0&id=p23122936636
The 10-Q is more recent than the shareholder letter, no?
Since we're on the subject, what do you make of this:
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1403570/000149315217003482/ex10-1.htm
This equity purchase agreement is entered into as of March 29, 2017 (this “Agreement”), by and between Quantum Materials Corp., a Nevada corporation (the “Company”), L2 Capital, LLC, a Kansas limited liability company ...
WHEREAS, the parties desire that, upon the terms and subject to the conditions csontained herein, the Company shall issue and sell to the Investor, from time to time as provided herein, and the Investor shall purchase up to Five Million Dollars ($5,000,000.00) of the Company’s Common Stock ...
ARTICLE VI COVENANTS OF THE COMPANY... Section 6.4 FILING OF CURRENT REPORT AND REGISTRATION STATEMENT. ...The Company shall also file with the SEC, within forty-five (45) calendar days from the date hereof, a new registration statement (the “Registration Statement”) covering the resale of the Put Shares and the Underlying Shares.
Why would you seek $2.5M of financing where you sell shares at 20% discount to the market price https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1403570/000149315217003482/ex10-1.htm
if you have $9.75M of financing where you sell shares at market price? https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1403570/000149315216014713/ex10-1.htm
Do tell...
Nope. Go back and read the docs they disclosed in the 8-K. They have missed both the deadline to file the required S-1, and the deadline to have the S-1 declared effective by the SEC. Presumably they did the $2.5M deal because the $9.75M is dead? There would be no reason to do the $2.5M if the $9.75M deal was still alive as the $2.5M deal is more expensive. The $9.75M deal was priced at market, and the $2.5M deal is priced at a discount to market.
The $9.75 million equity financing is good for 36 months, it is still open.
The collaboration between QMC and Freschfield will "BEGIN IN JUNE", it does not mean Freschfield payment of $250,000 will happen in June, it can happen in July, even in August.
The $1 million collaboration between QMC and Freschfield and the $2.5 million equity financing are two totally unrelated matters.
A current shareholder made an agreement with QMC to increase his holding by $9.75 million at share price over 12 cents
Closing of the $2.5 million equity financing mentioned in the March Shareholder Update
I did more research. Did you?
Samsung Venture Investment was one of the companies listed on both the Freschfield and Brookstreet Hollins websites. SV discloses their investments and doesn't list FF or BH at their website http://www.samsungventure.co.kr/ Also, Crunchbase doesn't show SV having ever made an investement in either company https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/samsung-ventures/investments
There are red flags as to conflicting claims when the company was formed, only having 1 natural person as an officer or director https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/10008820/officers, a person identified as a director in the press release who isn't listed as having ever been a director, the Chairman having multiple linkedin profiles showing "Brookstreet Hollins" and "The Brook Street Company," and a Chairman that goes by "Dr. Randolph Allen St. James II MBA JD LLM PhD." I can't believe he didn't add "esq." too???
I don't know about you, but I have a hard time seeing the listed companies investing in a business like that. It may turn out to be completely legit, however I think some skepticism is warranted until more is disclosed.
IMO, you might do more research. Check out the companies that are the core companies working with FF and QMC - all are legit, award and grant winners, innovative technologies, etc.
"Color gamut" is not a reference to the spectral range within which a QD or other phosphor can be engineered emit. It's a measurement of the range of colors that can be reproduced by a device. Saying "100% color gamut" is meaningless if you don't reference the gamut standard you are referring to (i.e. sRGB, DCI-P3, Rec. 2020, etc.).
Correct me if I'm wrong, but micro LEDs don't need color filters and neither does some OLED. If I remember right, LG OLED uses color filters, but Samsung OLED doesn't.
You can compare micro LED with Organic LED, they are nearly two of a kind, the former uses Gallium Nitride as LED, the later uses carbon compound. They are both electroluminescence but both requires color filter, so much of the light is lost in the filter, also they both cannot offer 100% color gamut. They are good for using in display in watch, mobile devices, TV and monitors, nothing else.
Quantum dot is the ultimate nano-particles which can emit 100% color gamut with wavelength ranging from 400 nanometer to 700 nanometer depending on the size of the dots (2 nanometer to 10 nanometer). But QD photovoltaic cells can absorb energy from ultra violet to infrared light so it can generate twice the electricity as compared to silicon PV cells. None of the Organic LED or micro LED can be as versatile as QD whose application is astronomical. Given time, if QMC will make QD affordable, QD will be as popular as the DVD, far more advanced than the VHS tapes.